MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           6 September 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060311

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that he be given a medical discharge and compensation.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he should never have been inducted.  He could not shoot because he had bad eyes since he was 5 years old.  He could not march because he had weak tendons and joints as a result of rheumatic fever when he was 12 years old.  He was beaten severely several times while in basic because he could not march or shoot but he was written up as refusing orders.  He was never released from the Army with his medical discharge in 1968.  He was finally released on 19 June 2001.  Most of his records were maliciously destroyed.  He wants to appear before the Board but needs the Government to pay for his and his spouse’s transportation and expenses.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records are not available.  Information contained herein was obtained from reconstructed records.

The applicant was inducted into the Army on 25 January 1968. 

On or about 20 March 1968, the applicant was referred to Optometry because of his inability to stand guard duty.  On 5 April 1968, a separation physical examination found him qualified for retention.  On 2 May 1968, a Medical Board found him medically unfit for induction due to defective vision and recommended his separation.  The applicant agreed with the findings of the board.  On 28 May 1968, the applicant was discharged for not meeting medical fitness standards at time of induction under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph   5-9a(2).  The applicant signed his Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214.

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of his employment on active duty.  In pertinent part, it states that if the disability at the time of evaluation is not greater than as it existed prior to entry in service (EPTS), the condition cannot be considered service aggravated and will be listed as not ratable. 

Army Regulation 635-200 prescribes polices for the separation of enlisted soldiers.  At the time, paragraph 5-9a(2) provided for the discharge of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards when the medical 

condition would have permanently disqualified him for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time and did not disqualify him for retention in the military service.

Army Regulation 15-185, the regulation under which the Board operates, states that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the Board.  The Director or the Board may grant a formal hearing whenever justice or the complexity of the case requires.  The Army may not pay attorney’s fees or other expenses incurred by or on behalf of an applicant in connection with an application for correction of military records under Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1552.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant correctly contends that he should not have been accepted for induction.  Unfortunately, induction/enlistment physical examinations are not comprehensive enough to detect many disqualifying medical conditions.  Once his condition – defective vision – was detected in basic training, he was given a more comprehensive examination.  He was found to meet the medical standards for retention but he did not meet the standards for induction.  A Medical Board recommended his separation.  The applicant agreed with the board’s findings and recommendation.  He knew what he was being separated for at the time he agreed with the Medical Board’s findings and at the time he signed his DD Form 214.

3.  The facts in this case are neither so complex that the applicant’s presence is required nor does he offer a compelling reason why justice cannot be served without his personal appearance.  In any case, the Army is prohibited by law from paying expenses incurred by an applicant in connection with an application for correction of military records.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lls___  __mhm___  __jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060311	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010906	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.